text:
Introduction: profusion and variety
There are hundreds of legal systems in the world. At the global level, international law is of great importance, whether created by the practice of sovereign states or by agreement among them in the form of treaties and other accords. Some transnational entities such as the European Union have created their own legal structures. At the national level there are over 180 sovereign states in the United Nations Organization. Many of these are federal or confederal, and their constituent parts may well have their own law.
But, despite this great variety, it is important to begin by emphasizing one great division: that into religious and secular legal systems. Each side of this split holds quite different views as to law, in its source, scope, sanctions, and function. The source of religious law is the deity, legislating through the prophets. Secular law is made by human beings, and one of its most famous examples begins with the words 'We, the people'. It follows from this difference in their source that religious laws are perceived to be eternal and immutable, while secular rules can be changed by their makers. Religious law tells people what to believe as well as how to behave, whereas secular law deals with our external actions as they affect others. In a religious legal system disputes are usually adjudicated by an officer of that religion, so the same person is both judge and priest. In a secular system, by contrast, the office of judge is separate, and is often reinforced by guarantees of judicial independence. A further difference lies in the enforcement of the laws: in a secular system sanctions are imposed in this world, and its severest punishment (the death penalty) amounts to forcible removal from the jurisdiction. The sanctions and rewards of a religious system may also occur in this world, but are often to be felt most keenly in the next.
Nowadays there are few countries whose legal system is exclusively religious, though some (mainly Muslim) aspire to this. By contrast a large number have secular systems, and this feature may be built into their legal structure, as in the 1958 French and the 1993 Russian constitutions, or the very first words of the First Amendment to the American Constitution, which came into force in 1789: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'.
A number of other countries have 'dual' systems in which religious rules govern, and religious courts adjudicate on, such matters as marriage, divorce, family relationships and possibly family property, while a secular system with state courts covers the wider fields of public and commercial law. This was the position in England until the 1850s, and is the case today in Israel, India, and Pakistan, while in some African countries these more private areas are ruled by local ethnic and religious custom. In these dual jurisdictions, the proportion of human activity governed by one or the other system may well depend on the stage of economic and political development of the country in question. This leads to a difficult area of enquiry, of which all that can be said in this context is that in some countries a sophisticated secular system may well exist, but only on paper.
A word should be added here about the place of law in human relations, for different peoples and different epochs have taken very different views on the matter. For some law is an aspiration, for others a blight. Some societies are proud to proclaim 'the rule of law'. Others see it as fit only for barbarians and put their trust in the ethical or customary matrix of the community. For instance, this seems to have been true of China both under the Emperors and in the years of the Cultural Revolution (1966-76). What follows deals with positive legal systems, and not with the views of a given time or people as to the place of law within society. Such matters are proper to a study of comparative ideology, politics or sociology. At the same time, the reader should remember that the underlying justification for the legal system is often perceived in broader terms than mere utility. This is well illustrated by the Canadian Constitution Act 1982 which begins by stating that 'Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.'
Although each system has its own individuality, it is possible to group many of them into legal 'families'. The advantage of this is that, if successful, it saves time and energy in description or prediction. Inevitably, of course, classification depends on the criteria used. In the past, legal systems have often been grouped by geography, race, language, religion, or official ideology. Here, it seems more useful to classify in terms of the systems' substantive features, and to devote most attention to the larger families.
The result of classification will differ greatly depending on whether we concentrate on public or on private law. With the former, our criteria would be the state structure and the relations of government entities (including the courts) with each other and with the citizen, and the field would range from constitutional law through administrative and tax law to the penal system. The latter classification, more traditional but very useful in some respects, looks mainly at how a legal system treats the law governing relations between private persons, including such matters as their property, their testaments, marriages, contracts and so on. Thus a country may resemble one family for private law purposes and another for those of public law. For instance, the private law of England stems from the 'common law'. That of Scotland does not. But both are governed by the same constitution which, unlike those of most common-law countries, is not written in one document and does not limit the ultimate powers of the legislature.
Constitutions differ widely, and for good reason. Some have to provide for a federal structure, some, although unitary, include quite different legal systems within the one state (e.g. Britain, Canada). Some have to handle serious internal ethnic, linguistic, and religious differences, while others are written for a homogeneous population. Some are largely restricted to a set of justifiable rules of law, while others contain manifesto-like proclamations and show a tendency to the picturesque by, for instance, the adoption of a national animal (always attractive, but rarely edible). Some are never meant to be taken seriously. A few are contained in no given text or texts, notably in Andorra, Israel, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Of these four, only the last will be discussed in any detail.
The differences in constitutional features have two different motivations. The first is practical: obviously a federal document will contain material absent from a unitary one. The second feature is the existence of value preferences prompted by national history. The constitution-makers in different countries, or at different moments in the history of any one country, have quite different preoccupations. The reason they are drafting a new constitution is a change in circumstances. Thus all constitutions contain elements that are autobiographical and so idiosyncratic. Different historical contexts have generated different preoccupations and priorities, and these in turn have led to quite different constitutional structures. Even among those drafters who admired the oldest enduring text which lies to hand - that of the USA - it is striking that, while its first three words ('We, the people') and its Bill of Rights may be often imitated, no one ever copies the structure of the Constitution itself.
For these reasons the only generalizations that can be reasonably be made are the following. First, constitutions aspire to regulate the allocation of powers, functions, and duties among the various agencies and officers of government and to define the relationship between these and the public. Second, no constitution, however well designed, can protect a a political system against effective usurpation. Third, in many countries the holders of power ignore the constitution more or less entirely. Fourth, even where constitutions work, none is complete: each operates within a matrix of compromise, custom or caselaw. Fifth, most begin by identifying (at least on paper) the constituent authority (such as 'the people') and often invoke the deity (e.g. Canada, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Pakistan, Switzerland). Sixth, they usually separate the legislative, executive and judicial organs of state. Seventh, they usually contain, or incorporate, a Bill of Rights. Eighth, they often provide some method for annulling laws and other instruments which conflict with the constitution, including the Bill of Rights. Ninth, they address the international scene only in generalities and, in practice, confer wide powers on the (federal) executive. Finally, they deal with the status of international law by either according or denying it direct internal effect.
Adoption and amendment
The idea of endowing a country with a single written constitution is relatively modern, though now widespread, so that the UK is one of the rare exceptions. Furthermore in a large number of countries the constitution follows some decisive event in national history: war, revolution, independence, federation and the like. This ensures that methods of adoption vary widely. The oldest and most prestigious - that of the USA - was adopted by agreement among the 13 states followed by ratification by elected conventions within them; its Bill of Rights (technically, if confusingly, called Amendments) was ratified by the State legislatures. By a seemingly similar method, but in the very different circumstances of the defeat of Nazi Germany, the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, finally approved by a Parliamentary Council and called the 'Basic Law', entered into force when notice of its ratification by representative assemblies in over two-thirds of the Laender was published: on 23 May 1949. By contrast, one of the most recent documents - that of the Russian Federation - by-passed the legislature (which the President had dissolved) and was voted directly by the people on 12 December 1993. According to the official returns, 54.8% of the electorate voted, of whom 58.4% were in favour. In between these two methods are many other techniques such as that of the 1958 French constitution which involved both approval by the legislature under procedure laid down by the existing constitution and then by the people in a referendum.
Both legal and political importance attach to the methods by which a constitution may be amended. They may divide the amending power among people, legislature, and executive, or between a federation and its components. They may express basic values by declaring certain features to be unamendable: the republican form of government in France and Italy, and in Germany the basic human rights and the federal structure. Some constitutions specify that matters like this may be amended only by referendum or by an entirely new constitution (e.g. the new Russian document). In federal systems, amendments normally require special majorities in the federal legislature followed by ratification by a special majority of the states. This is the US provision, now adopted for some types of amendment by the Russian Federation.
A common method is to require a special majority in the legislature - two-thirds in Germany, three-fifths in France, with similar systems in India and other Commonwealth countries (and this used to be the pattern in the Soviet bloc). Another parliamentary alternative is to require a second vote (Italy, Denmark, Finland). Finally, some systems divide the amending power between legislature and people, by requiring a referendum either for certain types or methods of amendment (Denmark, France, Ireland) or for any (e.g.Japan).
Unlike the systems just described, the UK constitution is indeterminate, indistinct and unentrenched. It is found in no single constitutional document. The volumes entitled 'Constitutional Law' in the official edition of the 'Statutes in Force' print 138 Acts of Parliament, while a quite separate volume on 'Rights of the Subject' gives another thirty-two, including what is left of Magna Carta 1215. Furthermore many matters in written constitutions, such as the procedure on a finance bill or a vote of no confidence, are governed entirely by custom, convention and Standing Orders of the Houses of Parliament. The basic constitutional instruments are presumably those of 1707: the Treaty of Union and Acts of Union of the English and Scottish Parliaments. From 1800 Ireland was also part of the UK until the Ireland Act 1949 finally admitted that it was no longer part of His Majesty's dominions. Since 1922 the UK has in effect consisted of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The British constitution is indistinct in that there is no way to tell whether 'ordinary' laws are in conflict with those forming part of the constitution (although since 2 October 2000 the courts may declare that a particular statute (though still valid) is incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. The constitution is unentrenched in that any element may be changed by an Act of Parliament passed in exactly the same way as any other piece of legislation.
In federal constitutions, listed powers are often allotted to the center, with the residue being left to the constituent parts. In practice the main powers of defence, taxation, and commerce go to the center, and federal laws override others. The constituent parts are protected, at least in theory, by representation in the upper house and by their own powers of governance in their territories. In this regard, the Russian Federation continues the USSR's system of a multi-level system of constituent parts to accommodate the polyethnic mix, though the old secession clause is gone. Broadly speaking the component entities retain the relative status accorded to them on paper when they were parts of the RSFSR which was itself within the Soviet Union: and the roots of the divisions are more a matter of geography and ethnic history than of politics.
The UK is not a federation, but it embraces four different legal systems: of England and Wales, of Scotland, of Northern Ireland, and - for general matters such as tax and for international purposes - that of the UK. In addition, the British government is responsible for the defence and international relations of the Channel Islands and Isle of Man, which are not part of the UK. Their citizens are not represented in (and therefore not taxed by) the UK Parliament, their basic legal system is not that of the mainland and, with their consent, laws are made for them by the Queen in Council (i.e. the British executive).
General Constitutional Features
Although constitutions vary greatly in length, usually the greatest detail is devoted to legislature and executive and the relations between them. Federal systems naturally have a bicameral legislature. But so also do many unitary systems with the lower house directly elected and the upper composed of those perhaps representing rural interests (France) or possessing special skills (Ireland). In most countries (but not the USA) the lower house can ultimately override the upper.
Two widespread patterns are those of the presidential and those of the parliamentary system. The first fuses ceremonial and political power into one office, with its incumbent elected directly and quite separately from the legislature: it is thus quite possible (and in the USA, common) for the President to be of one party and a majority of the legislature of another. It separates executive and legislative powers so that neither body can dissolve the other: the President is removable only for grave crime, in which the legislature acts as a tribunal. The President nominates Ministers for confirmation by the legislature, but there is no collective cabinet responsibility. The President usually has a veto over legislation, which may be overridden only by special parliamentary majority. On the other hand, the crucial power to tax remains with the legislature.
The new Russian structure embodies several of these features, but expands the presidency in a number of ways. First, following a tradition going back to the Tsars, the office of the President is given wide power to rule by edict (ukaz). Apart from the need to comply with the constitution and with federal legislation, this power seems virtually unlimited. Second, the President appoints the prime minister (with the consent of the lower House) and may dismiss the government. As in the US, the Russian President may veto legislation, but can then be overridden by special majority. Finally, the President can dissolve the lower House and call new elections if it thrice rejects his or her candidate for premier, or if it passes a motion of no-confidence in the government.
In the parliamentary system, the Head of State is distinct from the head of government - called Prime Minister, Premier (or, in Germany, Chancellor). The Head of State may be a hereditary monarch or directly elected President, but the premier is not directly chosen by the electorate, but appointed from the majority or coalition group in the legislature. The premier and other ministers have no fixed term of office but can in principle be forced to resign by parliamentary vote of no confidence in the government. This is usually balanced by executive power to dissolve the legislature and call new elections (although there may be some protection against hasty or repeated dissolutions). The premier and ministers dominate in two directions. First, although on paper the Head of State's powers look impressive (convoke the legislature, promulgate laws, grant pardons etc) in practice these are exercised on the instructions of the government. Second, the executive controls the legislative timetable and usually has the exclusive power to introduce finance bills.
Some systems are a mixed parliamentary/presidential structure. For instance in the France the President is far from being merely a titular Head of State. Since 1962 he or she is directly elected by the people, appoints the premier, has emergency powers, and signs the regulations emanating from the executive's very extensive lawmaking functions. In association with the government he or she can present bills to the people to enact by referendum, thereby bypassing the Parliament, and can dissolve the National Assembly and call new elections.
The Judiciary
When it comes to the judiciary, separation of powers is apparently taken quite seriously, although in England this is obscured by the fact that the upper House of the legislature has the same name as the highest court, and its Speaker (the Lord Chancellor) is the senior judge. In many systems, judges are independent and irremovable. In Russia this is expressly stated, but is a frail novelty. In the USA and UK it is not stated but is the case.
The only topic which merits brief discussion here is the relation between the constitution, the courts, and the legislature. The USA is virtually alone in allowing any court of general jurisdiction to decide matters of constitutionality. Normally such questions are for a Supreme Court or special Constitutional court. The French innovation allows bills to be referred only after they have passed through Parliament and before they are promulgated by the President. In England a court can examine the validity of a duly enacted statute unless it conflicts with the law of the European Community; the same may be true of Scottish courts, although some say they could examine UK statutes for conformity with the Act of Union 1707. Since October 2nd 2000, when the UK Human Rights Act took effect, English courts are able to declare a statute incompatible with the rights enshrined in the Act. This does not invalidate or render the statute ineffective: it is then up to the executive and ultimately the legislature to decide what to do about the offending legislation.
Emergency powers
The greater the constitutional commitment to a Bill of Rights, the more difficult it is to frame emergency powers. On the one hand the executive must be permitted to take emergency action; on the other the emergency power should not be capable of being used to subvert both the legislature and the Bill of Rights. The usual safeguard is to forbid the executive to use emergency powers to suspend, or curtail the power of, either of the other branches of government. Whether such provisions are effective in any given country is a matter of politics, not law. In the UK a permanent statute permits the government to proclaim a state of emergency, but regulations are subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. Special powers to deal with threats to security in Northern Ireland have been on the statute book for most of the twentieth century. The statutes restrict freedom of association and confer wide powers of arrest without warrant and, in Northern Ireland, limit the use of release on bail and jury trial. They are subject to annual renewal by Parliament.
Human Rights
The older pattern of constitutional protection of human rights is usually expressed by a negative: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press; the right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed; the right to be secure shall not be violated; no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This century has seen the addition of positive claims on the state - to education, employment and so on - and entitlements against discrimination on the grounds of gender, religion, nationality and the like. Such provisions are often declared to be entrenched and to bind legislature, executive and judiciary. To what extent these Bills of Rights are effective is more a matter of political power, than of legal technicality.
Common Law and Civil Law
On looking at the historical development and substantive features of the legal systems of the world we can see that many of them fall into one of two families. In the whole of human history only two peoples seem to have founded a secular, comprehensive, enduring, and widespread legal system: the Romans of the Ancient World and the Anglo-Normans of the Middle Ages. The pedigree of the civil law goes back to Ancient Rome, although the later customary family law, and the canon law of procedure have also marked the system. The Common Law world begins in England. Of course within each family there are major differences between individual members, but each is still quite clearly not a member of the other family.
The best way to explain the main elements of the Civil and the Common Law families and to compare and contrast the two is to look at the following features.
The Common Law was conceived in 1066 and born of a union between older Saxon law and the custom of the Norman conquerors. The Civil Law was older then than the Common Law is now.
The Common Law was nurtured in London lawcourts, by judges and barristers. The older Roman Law was developed - to an important extent - by jurists, who were not practising lawyers but public-minded citizens. It was they who strove to expound, explain and adapt the ancient and sporadic legislation and the edicts of the officials; the high-point of their contribution occurred in the decades around 200AD.
The Common Law spread only by conquest and colonization: no one ever accepted it freely (and the countries of the former Soviet bloc are taking their models from the civil law, not the common law). The Roman part of the Civil Law, preserved in Justinian's collection of 533AD, was rediscovered in the 11th century, embraced by the University law schools of northern Italy (see also here), and spread from them throughout continental Europe. From there, and like the common law, it went to the New World and to parts of Africa by colonization. But, especially in the 19th century, the French and then the German versions were selected as models by countries in the Middle and Far East.
Although originally written in Latin and spoken in Norman French, the language of the Common Law today is virtually only English. Wherever some version of the common law is in force, the native or official language of the country is English. The legal vocabulary, however, is likely to be markedly technical if not arcane and to contain much dead French and Latin. By contrast, the Civil Law is found in most languages.
The main creators of the Common Law are the judiciary: that is to say the matrix, the basic operating system, is laid down by caselaw. Recruited from the ranks of successful practising lawyers, the judges speak with individual and distinctive voices: they lay down the law. The great names are well known in common-law countries, and in the USA and Canada the highest court is an institution of enormous power and prestige. In civil-law systems, at least until very recently, judges played the comparatively minor role of settling the dispute in front of them. They did not make the rules of the system, and their decisions are not cited in later cases. Appointed to the Bench in their middle to late twenties, they are civil servants who, in principle, rarely sit alone but in groups of three. They are trained to produce just one decision - that of 'the court' - written in the dry laconic prose of a bureaucrat.
Of course the modern countries of both systems produce large amounts of legislation. But that of the common-law countries tends to be piecemeal. Save for the constitution, and fiscal matters, basic principles are not enacted (except as codifications of existing caselaw in such statutes as the Partnership Act). The typical statute merely adjusts some detail of the rules laid down by the courts. In complete contrast, modern civil law systems tend to think of themselves as 'codified'. The word 'code' in this context means that a whole area of law is laid down in one legislative document which aims to provide a closed, coherent and consistent set of propositions which, if used in good faith, can be applied to solve any dispute in that area. The most obvious example is that of a criminal code. Historically, however, the most influential models have been the civil codes of France (see also here) (1804) and Germany (see also here) (1900). These deal with non-criminal private law, that is the rules on persons and family, property, wills and intestacy, contracts, torts and so on. Such codes also provide the general pattern of thought in the whole legal culture, acting as a default system for gaps elsewhere (for instance in the laws regulating employment or the environment). So important are they that a French lawyer will call the Civil Code 'le droit commun' (the common law) and will aver that French law is codified. It is not: administrative law and conflicts law are found in no coherent code; but the assertion illustrates the impact of the great Civil Code.
Where the basic principles are contained in an enacted code, this is the source of the law. Judicial decisions do not make law because they do not need to. So, for instance, the Austrian Civil Code 1811 - which lays down the basic rules of private law - can sensibly provide: 'Decisions in individual cases and the opinions handed down by courts in particular lawsuits never have the force of law; they cannot be extended to other cases or to other persons.' ('2) This approach is fortified by the historical fact that civil-law judges did not see their job as creating law, the professional fact that they are career civil servants, and the political fact that it is thought more democratic to entrust lawmaking to the elected representatives of the people. Common-law perceptions are quite different. Historically, the judges made the law. Furthermore, to this day the legislator in common law countries does not lay down the basic rules of the legal system. But they are needed, and so a notion of precedent comes into being. For instance, the English parliament has never defined murder, never laid down that you must keep your contracts, or pay compensation for damage unlawfully caused to others. Since such definitions and rules are necessary, courts and lawyers can find them only in earlier caselaw. And since it would be absurd and unfair if judges could re-make the basic law of murder or of contract in any case before them, a rule of 'precedent' binds them to the law as declared by higher courts in their jurisdiction. This means that, in deciding a legal issue, the common-law judge must come to terms openly and honestly with any rule laid down by precedent, just as a civil-law court has to face up to the rules laid down by the legislator. The doctrine of precedent is an operating rule of a common-law system: so the rule itself was never laid down by a legislator. It is a judicial creation and can be amended or adapted by its makers. So in England, for instance, the highest court (the House of Lords) held in the 19th century that it was bound by the law laid down in its own prior decisions. In the 1960s is amended that rule and gave notice that it was now free, to change its mind. Lower courts, however, are bound by the highest court's rulings on matters of law.
Legal disputes are as much about fact as about law. The work of the lower courts, in particular, is very largely taken up with determining issues of fact. The common law and the modern civil law both developed in territories where such matters were decided by ordeal, oath or battle. On discarding these methods, the two systems took different paths. The judges who built up the common law system were few in number, and left the hard work of fact-finding to non-lawyers: the jury, originally of neighbours who might be thought to know the background, and then of disinterested strangers empanelled to hear the evidence and decide. Nowadays only the USA makes much use of the jury for non-criminal matters (as required by the VII Amendment), but its ghost rules the procedure of all common-law countries. The very word 'trial' suggests a single, continuous and relatively short session in which all the evidence is presented to a jury who knew nothing about it beforehand. Similarly, there is no need for the judge to be acquainted with the case before the trial begins. The proceedings are oral, since that is the quickest and most effective way of conveying information to a number of laypersons. And their verdict is difficult to overturn, since an appellate court has not heard the evidence directly nor seen the witnesses in person. The civil law systems, by contrast, have always left the task of finding the facts to a professional judge. This has a number of consequences. First, there were always far more judges in civil- than in common-law countries. Second, the judge could be given more control from the outset of the dispute in deciding which witnesses to call and what questions to put to them. Third, the procedure could be more sporadic, spread over a number of sessions, and reduced to writing: the civil-law word often mistranslated as 'trial' is le procPs, der Prozess - a better rendering is 'the proceedings'. Fourth, the rules of evidence can be flexible, since a professional judge is presumed capable of accurately assessing testimony. Finally it is easier for a higher court to correct or revise a decision.
One result of the above features is that in common-law countries the legal system is not organised in a coherent and clear structure. Its development tends to be incremental and casuistic, and it is not easy for the foreign lawyer to approach. Civil lawyers, on the other hand, lay great emphasis on system and structure. Furthermore, they tend to follow similar patterns in their organisation of legal topics, and once these are understood it is relatively simple to locate the law on any given topic.
Some version of the common-law is found today only in places once occupied by the British, among them Ireland, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, Nigeria and Ghana. But (except for the special case of Israel) no country which has the common law seems able or willing to get rid of it.
So far we have spoken of the Civil Law in general, in comparing it to the Common Law. Within the former family, however, there are two great sub-branches. For one of them the French approach has largely been the model, for the other the German. The French have, directly or indirectly, influenced Belgium, the Netherlands, Mauritius, Quebec, Louisiana, Italy, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Sub-Saharan Africa, Spain, Latin America. The German model was followed later in such countries as Japan, Greece, Thailand, Taiwan, Portugal, Brazil.
Some systems, while recognisably those of the civil law, have rather gone their own way in the organisation of their private and commercial law, for instance Austria (1811) and Switzerland (1907, 1911). Finally there has been much rethinking of the heart of private and commercial law in Quebec and the Netherlands and both have recently adopted an entirely new Civil Code.
Those countries of Eastern Europe which, before they became Soviet satellites, had their own civil-law systems (such as Poland, Hungary, and of course the German Democratic Republic) have turned again to their earlier tradition.
Other systems
Outside the two large legal families are a number of systems, some relatively easy for a Western lawyer to understand, others much more remote.
'Mixed' Systems
In the first group are countries with a 'mixed' system influenced by both civil and common law. The older uncodified civil law of Holland is the basis of the Roman-Dutch law of South Africa, Zambia, Namibia, Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana and, on the other side of the ocean, Sri Lanka; it is marked by a rich juristic literature stemming from Hugo Grotius (de Groot) in the 17th century. But their long contacts with Britain mean that their public law and systems of court procedure owe much to the common law.
Scotland, Louisiana, Mauritius and Quebec are examples of a private law based on older civil and customary rules (uncodified in Scotland) struggling to endure in a common-law environment. Israel has a system all its own, where the older Ottoman and British mandate layers are now overriden by a modern system. It has no single constitutional document, but much of the modern law combines the broad legislative simplicity of the great codes of civil law with the careful transparency of the common-law judgment.
Nordic Europe
The legal systems of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden do not fit neatly into the civil-law pattern. Their original Germanic public and private law was collected in legislative form long before the rationalising fashion of the French model: in Denmark (1683), Norway (1683), and Sweden-Finland (1734). Marked by relatively small populations with a high standard of living, economic efficiency and the ideals of the modern welfare state, they have adopted much uniform legislation especially in the fields of commerce and family law.
Socialist law
Until recently, the USSR and its satellites proclaimed that their socialism was producing an entirely new form of law, not to be judged by or even compared with the older systems. This view was said to be the scientific conclusion of a Marxist analysis. Even in those days, however, the systems' documents looked, on the surface, familiar: constitutions and civil codes many of whose rules bore - at least on paper - a strong resemblance to the traditional provisions.
The USSR's peaceful disintegration into 15 sovereign states has provoked much activity in fashioning new structures. Most of the states by now have a new democratic constitution and are drafting the rest of the legal system. Among the last acts of the old USSR was the enactment of a comprehensive framework of Basic Principles for private law. It was used in Russia as an interim instrument until the Civil Code of November 1994. In time the statute book will probably look much like those of the civil-law German-speaking countries. More problematic is the personnel to run the system, in the shape of lawyers and, above all, of judges who are well-trained, wise, and honest.
From its inception in 1949, the People's Republic of China's declared aim was to attain socialism. It abrogated all earlier legislation and during the next decade much of the formal law appeared inspired by Soviet models. But the 'Great Leap Forward' of 1958 emphasised ideological leadership, law was denigrated and degraded during the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), and it was not until the 1980s that something resembling a recognisable legal system began to appear. Under the 1982 Constitution (see also here), China - despite its size - is not a federation. The People's Congress is the named legislator and the 'executive' is the State Council, although much power remains with the Chinese Communist Party. The pre-Cultural Revolution legal structure has been partly resurrected, and a legal framework of codes enacted. The Basic Principles of Civil Law contain many provisions that would be familiar to Western jurists. The actual functioning of the system, however, is affected by the persistent attitude that makes law subordinate to the decisions of central and local political authorities.
The number of Muslim countries is growing, but the main common feature is the Islamic religion which aims to cover all areas of life, not merely the spiritual. It thus has the features of a religious system of law, as described above. In its strongest formulation, some Islamic scholars state that law cannot exist outside religion and therefore the state has no power to legislate. But in practice the religion is found in countries with very different histories, whose formal legal systems vary from the absolute sovereignty of some Gulf states through the French and Swiss-influenced codes of Egypt and Turkey, the common-law patterns of Pakistan and India, the Soviet structures of the central Asian republics, to the revolutionary councils and tribunals of Iran.
Hindu law
Unrivalled in age and continuity, the Hindu law found in India, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Malaysia and parts of East Africa is contained in a literature which is vast, complex and seemingly impossible to summarise. Its laws and customs are derived from sages of the past who were themselves taught by a creator, it preaches the birth, death and rebirth of living things, and its precepts cover many more activities than does any secular legal system. In the countries mentioned, however, it governs only the personal and family relations of those involved and its family law has been codified and much amended, especially in India. Nonetheless it can affect the lives of some 450 million people.
Customary laws
In many parts of the world unwritten local or tribal custom sets the standard of behaviour and provides for conciliation and dispute settlement. Most of the African countries, for instance, have a formal constitutional and commercial law inspired by French, Belgian or British models but remit the relations between private individuals to the appropriate customary framework.
Criminal Law
Crimes are wrongdoings seen from the point of view of the society in which they occur: the convicted wrongdoer may be punished. Torts include the same wrongdoings seen from the point of view of their victim: the wrongdoer may be ordered to pay compensation. Sins include the same wrongdoings seen from the point of view of a faith; they call for repentance and atonement. Thus all three systems agree in condemning the most common acts of wickedness - murder, rape, robbery, violence, theft and the like. Once such acts occur, however, the secular responses seem in practice weak. Relatively few crimes are solved, few criminals convicted. Almost never are they made to compensate their victim.
Nonetheless many societies attach great importance to a system of criminal justice: laws which define crimes and provide the sanctions; procedural rules for establishing guilt in a court; and a set of methods and places of punishment and rehabilation. Furthermore the types of actions declared to be criminal are, in all major matters, much the same everywhere.
As with the area of the ordinary non-criminal private law, the system in the 'civil law' world has developed from two main sources: first the Napoleonic codes of penal procedure (1808) and penal law (1810), and then the German penal and procedural codes (1871, 1877). A key figure in the criminal procedure of many civil-law countries is the juge d'instruction who supervises the pre-trial stages. The use of a jury is uncommon save for very serious crimes, though Russia is introducing the system. On the other hand the first instance tribunal often comprises one judge and two lay persons, all of whom deliberate together and decide on guilt and sentence. Another common feature (at least in theory) is the presence of the victim as 'civil plaintiff', so that the same court can convict the accused, assess the victim's injury or damage, and order the accused to pay compensation.
Countries of the 'common-law' world began from the English criminal law but, unlike England, now normally have a comprehensive and coherent penal code (the British parliament has never defined murder: this has been left to the courts). A typical feature of these 'common-law' systems is that, for all save relatively minor offences, the decision on guilt or innocence is taken by a jury of lay-persons selected for that case: this has a profound effect on the conduct of a trial and the presentation of evidence. Another feature is that the victim who seeks compensation must start another lawsuit before another court.
Whatever their origin, most legal systems agree on certain basic premisses. First, that no one can be guilty of a crime unless the offence is defined as such beforehand, and the conviction arrived at by a lawful procedure. Inherent in this is the requirement of clarity in criminal law, a prohibition against its retrospective effect, and certain notions of 'fair trial' and the availability of legal representation. Second that no one can be prosecuted twice for the same thing. Third that deliberately criminal conduct can be punished although it did not succeed - it is a crime to attempt a crime, or to conspire with others to commit one.
The fourth common premiss is harder to explain. The essential ingredients of a crime contain both a factual and a mental element. The first covers certain (not involuntary) human conduct in certain circumstances, and sometimes with certain consequences: for example stealing involves taking someone else's property; on a charge of homicide the prosecution must prove that the victim is dead. The second means that it must normally be shown that the accused deliberately or recklessly did the forbidden act. The important point here is that, as a general principle, mere carelessness (or stupidity) is not a crime calling for punishment, but at worst a tort calling for compensation. Thus if you make off with my raincoat, honestly thinking it yours and not even seeing the risk that it might not be, you are not a thief: you did not deliberately or recklessly intend to take someone else's property. Of course if my name is marked inside it then you may have been careless, in which case you may owe me compensation. But you are not a criminal: stealing is dishonesty and you were (though negligent) perfectly honest. To this general principle there are important exceptions: careless driving is an obvious example and, where death is caused by gross negligence there may some homicide charge less than one of murder. Furthermore in many systems a number of (relatively slight) offences may be committed without any mental culpability at all. The reasons given for this include the need to protect the public and the difficulty of proving any mental element. Examples include the use of unroadworthy vehicles on a public highway.
Most systems accept that criminal liability is not to be imputed to certain classes of people: the very young or persons under severe mental illness. Systems also recognise a number of exculpating or mitigating circumstances such as self-defence, provocation, suicide pacts and the like.
Private Law
Private law is the name commonly given to that vast area dealing with the legal relations between persons. It covers matters of pure status (marriage, divorce, kinship and so on); matters involving assets of some sort (property, succession, contracts); and commercial activities in the wider sense. Its essential feature is that the participants are presumed to be juridically equals (unlike the public law structure where relations are hierarchical) so that one cannot give orders to another, unless so authorised under some previous contractual or family arrangement. Its essential technique is that much of it is not automatically binding (jus cogens in lawyers' language) but serves to cut down the cost of legal transactions by providing a set of patterns which citizens may use if they wish. For instance the intestacy rules operate only if a person dies without having made a will. The rules on sale, lease, loan, partnership and so on are there as models which can be adopted in full, or modified if the parties so desire.
In countries of the Civil Law group these three areas of status, assets, and business may be dealt with in separate codes of Family Law, Civil Law (using the word in a narrower sense) and Commercial Law. In the common-law world the basic system is laid down by caselaw, although there are many modern statutes which often re-state and systematise the work of the judges.
Despite the many differences on the surface and in particular detailed rules, the overall structure of private law in both civil and common-law systems can be stated quite simply in a formula derived ultimately from the Roman jurists: private law deals with persons, property, obligations and liability.
Private law defines who counts as a person able to enter into legal relations and deals with their legal capacity (so as to protect the very young or the mentally ill). Since the abolition of slavery, all human beings count as persons. Furthermore, these natural persons may set up other 'artificial' legal persons such as associations, foundations, and - most important - business corporations.
All these persons may own property and hold it for its own sake (house, clothes etc) or as a business or investment (office blocks, factories, shares, savings accounts). Only the socialist systems attempted to prevent this second function of property by forbidding private persons to own 'the means of production'. The property involved may be tangible, and is often divided for legal purposes into immovable and movable (or 'realty' and 'personalty' in the obscure jargon of the common law). It may also be intangible, such as debts in the hands of a creditor, stocks and shares, copyrights, patents and so on. If the owners have full legal capacity (i.e. are sane adults) they may normally deal with their property as they please, subject of course to rules of public policy, zoning regulations and the like. They can deal with their property during their lifetime or by will, although many systems ensure that some of the deceased's property goes to near relatives.
Persons may incur obligations voluntarily by entering into a contract - for instance to get a job, buy a house, borrow on the security of a mortgage, take out an insurance policy. They also - whether they like it or not - incur the obligation imposed by law (the law of tort) to compensate others for unjustified harm caused them deliberately or carelessly. Likewise imposed by law are the duties which stem from family relationships.
The structure of private law is sealed by the following rule, now almost universal: a person must answer with his or her property for performance of all obligations. So, if the worst comes to the worst, most of a debtor's assets can be taken by process of execution. Human beings can be made bankrupt, and corporations liquidated.
See also
- University of Richmond Constitution Finder
- Wikipedia on Civil Law
This article was originally written by Bernard Rudden


text:
A spokesman for the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario said Wednesday the event didn't qualify for a special occasion permit because it is not considered "of municipal significance," a designation that must be granted by city council.
"That's not our call," Jeff Keay said.
Last year's Ford Fest obtained the permit by applying through the caterer, Muzik Nightclub, which already had a liquor licence, Keay said.
Ford, who returned to city hall this month after seeking treatment for alcohol addiction, said organizers simply weren't able to get a permit in time for Friday's party.
"It was all timing, that's all it comes down to," he said.
"We're going to go ahead and invite everyone on Friday, July 25 to come out to Thomson Memorial Park and guarantee that people have a good time like they had the last 19 Ford Fests."
Guidelines posted on the commission's website say applications must be submitted at least 30 days in advance.
Keay said the application for Ford Fest was filed July 7, but added a permit could "theoretically" be granted by Friday should council deem the event to be of municipal significance.
The celebration was originally held at the family home but moved to public parks in recent years as it drew larger and larger crowds.
A spokeswoman for the city said organizers were issued a permit Tuesday allowing them to hold the event in the east-end park.
But Jackie DeSouza said the mayor's office has been warned there can be no campaigning at Ford Fest, since a city policy prohibits it in public parks.
Toronto voters go to the polls Oct. 27 and Ford has vowed to remain in the race, saying it would help his recovery to stay on as mayor.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
When the shots weren't falling, James Harden helped the Houston Rockets find a new way to score.
Harden had 31 points and seven assists to lead the Rockets to a 104-92 victory over the New Orleans Hornets on Wednesday night.
When he couldn't find a rhythm from beyond the arc, Harden took to the paint, where he scored 16 of his points. For a team that ranks second only to New York in 3-pointers attempted and made, Houston outscored New Orleans 60-28 in the paint.
"I think that shows the maturity that we're growing and that we're getting better," Harden said. "Sometimes our offense isn't on point, but we're finding ways to score."
Harden has led the Rockets in scoring for 14 straight games, not including a Dec. 10 loss to San Antonio where he was sidelined with an ankle injury. He has posted 20-plus points in a career-best 14 straight games, second only to Kobe Bryant for the league's longest such streak this season.
Omer Asik had 21 points and eight rebounds, and forward Patrick Patterson scored 13 of his 15 points in the fourth quarter and added nine rebounds in the game for the Rockets.
Harden and Asik combined to score 18 of Houston's 25 third-quarter points.
Reserve Ryan Anderson had 18 points, and Greivis Vasquez had the third double-double of his last four games with 15 points and 14 assists for New Orleans, which lost for the 14th time in the last 16 games.
Just two days after hitting a season-high 16 3-pointers in a victory over Atlanta, the Rockets went cold from beyond the arc. Houston made a season-low five 3s on 24 attempts (20.8 percent.).
"They didn't hit the 3s that they normally hit, but they just kept attacking our guards," New Orleans coach Monty Williams said. "They played in our paint all night long."
The Rockets led 49-44 at halftime, falling short of 50 first-half points for just the second time in the last nine games. Houston entered Wednesday's game second in the league in scoring with 105.8 points per game.
"We're going to take a lot of 3s," Rockets coach Kevin McHale said. "It's just how our offense is and how our personnel is. We do live and die by that a little bit."
Anderson tied the game for New Orleans at 82 on a 3-pointer with less than seven minutes remaining, but Houston followed with a 10-2 run.
"They shoot the ball so well and when they run, they can capitalize very quickly," Williams said. "We just got beat up in the fourth quarter and weren't able to come back."
Chandler Parsons finished with 10 points and 10 rebounds for Houston, and Jeremy Lin had nine points and seven assists.
In addition to Anderson, Jason Smith and Brian Roberts also scored in double-figures off the bench for New Orleans.
New Orleans was without guard Eric Gordon, who had spent most of the season recovering from a knee injury before making his season debut last Saturday. Gordon scored 11 points Tuesday night, but Williams rested him as a precaution and said he expected Gordon to return when the Hornets visit Dallas on Saturday.
Rookie Austin Rivers started in place of Gordon and finished with only four points and one assist in 17 minutes. Rivers made just one of six free throws, and New Orleans finished 11 of 20 from the free throw line.
"We have some young guys who have never been in this position before and they're overwhelmed," Williams said. "I wish the season started today because we'd be in a lot better shape, record-wise. Guys are frustrated, but I see tons of growth and this is going to help us going forward."
The Rockets visit Milwaukee on Friday to begin a stretch where they will play nine of their next 11 games on the road. Houston is 5-8 on the road and 13-6 at home.
Notes: Houston announced Wednesday the signing of G/F James Anderson, who averaged 3.4 points and 1.4 rebounds in 9.4 minutes per game in 10 games this season for San Antonio. The Spurs waived Anderson on Dec. 20. To make room for Anderson, the Rockets released G Daequan Cook.


text:
Performing organizations spearhead the musical and social development of music students at Bemidji State University.
The Bemidji Choir, Chamber Singers, Damenstimmen Women's Chorus, Musikanten Men's Chorus, Opera Theatre, Wind Ensemble, Symphonic Band, Jazz Band, Bemidji Symphony Orchestra, Brass Ensembles and Percussion Ensemble provide ample opportunity for both growth and enjoyment.
Open to music majors, minors, and non-majors, these groups also provide opportunities for both travel and special activities.
The Bemidji Choir and Chamber Singers, and Wind Ensemble and Jazz Band tour regionally every year.
The Bemidji Choir and Chamber Singers, Jazz Band, and Wind Ensemble perform international tours as well.
Vocalists present the Madrigal Dinners and Opera each year and perform both locally and on tour, including performances in venues such as Carnegie Hall in New York and around the country.


text:
STOCKHOLM (AP) — Senegalese singer Youssou N'Dour and Finnish composer Kaija Saariaho have been awarded the international 2013 Polar Music Prize, Sweden's most prestigious award for musicians.
They will each receive 1 million kronor ($153,300) and an invitation to the prize ceremony in Stockholm Aug. 27.
In its awarding citation on Tuesday, the prize committee said 53-year-old N'Dour, who has collaborated with artists including Sting, Bruce Springsteen and Neneh Cherry, has a voice that "encompasses an entire continent's history and future, blood and love, dreams and power."
The committee praised him for preserving an oral record of tribal history in the tradition of West African griots.
"A West African griot is not just a singer, but a storyteller, poet, singer of praise, entertainer and verbal historian. Youssou N'Dour is maintaining the griot tradition and has shown that it can also be changed into a narrative about the entire world," the committee said.
"With his exceptionally exuberant band Super Étoile de Dakar (Dakar star) and his musically groundbreaking and political solo albums Youssou N'Dour has worked to reduce animosities between his own religion, Islam, and other religions."
The committee described 60-year-old Saariaho as a unique composer "who re-examines what music can be" by combining acoustic instruments with electronics and computers.
"She has written chamber music, orchestral works and operas," it said in a statement. "Kaija Saariaho is a modern maestro who opens up our ears."
The award, founded in 1989 by the late Stig Anderson, manager of Swedish pop group ABBA, has been handed out every year since 1992 and is typically shared by a pop artist and a classical musician. Previous laureates include artists Patti Smith, Paul McCartney, Joni Mitchell and bands such as Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin.


text:
Craig Semetko is as at home behind the lens as anyone who has ever picked up a camera. But his latest job for Open Shutter Gallery took him far out of his comfort zone.
I dont like judging anyone, Semetko said earlier this week from a friends home in Chicago.
Open Shutter owner Margy Dudley invited Semetko, a Los Angeles-based professional photographer and writer, to serve as juror for the gallerys third annual juried exhibition Exposure. Semetko had hoped to attend tonights opening, but he hit a deer with his car in North Dakota last week and has been stranded in the Windy City since. The accident also interrupted his work on America: E Pluribus Unum, a photo and book project that has sent Semetko coast-to-coast for the last year and a half. His Ford Escape hybrid had logged more than 4,000 miles on the trip before he hit the deer.
Like all Americans, I felt the country was polarized, and I want to get back to what that motto means from many, one, he said.
Im a man with a camera driving around the U.S.A. trying to recapture history with slice-of-life photographs, and I hope when its finished to show that were all still one country.
Durango is a favorite getaway for Semetko, who has shown his work at Open Shutter for several years and also held a book release party at the gallery in 2010 for his collection UNPOSED. For Exposure, Dudley and gallery manager Brandon Donahue sent a global call and received more than 300 submissions from all over the U.S. and from India, Israel, Canada and other countries. An Open Shutter committee narrowed those to 50 finalists. Semetko chose the award-winners:
Best of Show: Elephant Trainer by James Cammack (Bayfield)
Best of Color: Approaching Storm by Branson Reynolds (Durango)
Best of Black & White: Jasper National Park by Gabor Fur (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada)
Excellence Awards
You Distract Him, Ill Go for the Camera by Alexander Judkins (South Pasadena, Calif.)
Sunday Morning, Notre Dame by Bob Soltys (Cleveland, Ohio)
Cattle Egret by Douglas Herr (Orangevale, Calif.)
Two by Samuel Newton (Durango)
Bamboo Raft, Li River, China by Michael Flicek (Casper, Wyo.)
Fall Reflects by MaryAnne Nelson (Durango)
Its all clichés, but I really did like them all and theyre all winners, Semetko said. Ive done it before, too. They say it feels good just to be nominated and they are winners they got accepted into the show. Hopefully, I looked at it with some objectivity but I have opinions, and Im sure others do, too.
Donahue said he was happy to see Semetko choose a few local winners. The images were sent to Semetko electronically so there was no conspiracy to make that happen. The juror had no way of knowing whose photos came from where.
Im always impressed at the talent here in Durango, Donahue said. When I saw (James Cammacks winning photo) I was surprised to see that he lives in Bayfield. Thats so cool.


text:
Deadliest commercial airline crashes in history
- Several commercial jet crashes have resulted in the deaths of over 200 people
- Some of these are terrorist-related, but others are tied to mechanical or pilot errors
- The deadliest crash involving a single aircraft -- with 520 killed -- was in 1985 in Japan
(CNN) -- The plight of 239 souls aboard Malaysia Airlines' Flight MH37 remained unresolved Saturday, after the aircraft went missing somewhere between Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and Beijing, China. Whatever happened, the ordeal raises sad memories of horrific airplane crashes that have cost thousands of lives in recent decades.
Some of the worst such incidents -- like four crashes in frightening succession into New York's World Trade Center, the Pentagon and rural Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001; the 1988 downing of Pan Am Flight 103 in Lockerbie, Scotland; and a 1977 crash involving the apparent hijacking of a Malaysian Airlines jet that left 100 dead -- involved terrorist activity.
But there are many others that did not, with mechanical problems, pilot error or other reasons blamed for loss of life.
Below are some examples of the latter: crashes that left at least 200 people dead in each incident.
Historian: Plane mystery MUST be solved
60 years post disaster, still no answers
March 3, 1974: 346 people are killed when a Turkish Airlines DC-10 experiences a sudden decompression shortly after takeoff from Paris and slams into a park in Ermeonville, France.
March 27, 1977: A KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Boeing 747 beginning its takeoff crashed into Pan American World Airways Boeing 747 then still on the runway at the Los Rodeos Airport at Tenerife in the Canary Islands. A total of 574 people, aboard both planes, died.
May 25, 1979: An engine on the left wing of an American Airlines DC-10 falls off as it's trying to take off from Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, setting off chaos that results in 271 deaths on board and two others on the ground. The Federal Aviation Administration later faults American Airlines maintenance techniques for the crash for Flight 191.
November 28, 1979: Some 275 people died when their Air New Zealand plane, a DC-10, hits Mt. Erebus on Antarctica -- a crash that it believed to stem from navigational error.
August 12, 1985: The deadliest-ever commercial air crash involving a single plane occurred nearly 30 years ago in the mountains of central Japan. A total of 520 people were killed when Japan Airlines Flight 123 -- a Boeing 747 -- crashed not long after takeoff from Tokyo. Four people miraculously survived.
May 26, 1991: Twelve minutes after takeoff, Lauda Air's Flight 004 stalls in midair. The Boeing 767 ultimately crashes some 70 miles northwest of Bangkok, Thailand, killing all 223 passengers and crew.
July 11, 1991: The landing gear of a Nigeria Airways DC-8 catches fire shortly after takeoff Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. It doesn't make it back to the airport, crashing nose-down less than 10,000 feet
short of the runway and killing all 261 people aboard.
April 26, 1994: The pilot of a China Airlines' Flight 140 alerts the control tower at Japan's Nagoya Airport of his intention not to land and try another approach. But something goes wrong and, a short time later, the Airbus A300 crashes leading to 264 fatalities -- though a few passengers do survive.
July 17, 1996: TWA Flight 800 explodes in mid-air shortly after takeoff from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, then falls into pieces off the coast of Long Island. All 230 aboard die. The National Transportation Safety Board later blames the blast on an electrical short circuit that found its way into the center wing fuel tank.
November 12, 1996: A Saudi Arabian Airlines Boeing 747 and a Kazakhstan Airlines II-76 collide over the airport in New Delhi, India, killing 349 people on both airplanes.
August 6, 1997: Flight 801 that had left Seoul, South Korea, was near its final destination in Guam when it smacked into a jungle and hit the ground. The plane, a Boeing 747, was destroyed and 228 people were killed, though there were 26 survivors.
September 26, 1997: Garuda Indonesia airlines' Flight 152 crashes in Buah Nabar, Indonesia, killing 234 people. A National Transportation Safety Board report issued three years later found the crash's most likely cause was an electrical short circuit in the Airbus A300 that ignited vapors in the fuel tank.
February 16, 1998: Flying through rain and fog, the crew of China Airlines' Flight 676 from Indonesia to Taiwan requests another landing approach at Taipei International Airport. In the process of turning around, the aircraft crashes into a neighborhood, killing all 196 aboard and another seven on the ground.
September 2, 1998: A Swissair jetliner that had departed New York's Kennedy airport on its way to Geneva, Switzerland, goes down off the coast of Nova Scotia, Canada; none of the 229 people aboard Flight 111 make it. Investigators believe that the MD-11 lost all electrical power immediately before the crash.
November 12, 2001: A few weeks after the 9/11 terrorist attack, American Airlines' Flight 587 stirs fears and panic when it plummets into Belle Harbor, Queens. Despite the initial concerns, the National Transportation Safety Board found no evidence of sabotage. Still the Airbus A300 crash had a huge toll -- the highest, in fact, for any single airliner crash in U.S. history -- with all 260 dead on the plane killed plus five more innocents on the ground.
May 25, 2002: Twenty minutes after takeoff, China Airlines' Flight 611 plummets into the Taiwan Strait -- resulting in 225 fatalities. The crash is later attributed to metal fatigue and cracks throughout the Boeing 747.
June 1, 2009: Air France Flight 447 is en route from Rio de Janiero to Paris when it and its 228 passengers and crew go missing somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean. It's not until five days later that the first bodies are found about 600 miles off the northern coast of Brazil. Two years later, French authorities blame the crash on equipment malfunction.
CNN's Greg Botelho contributed to this report.
Source: www.cnn.com
Category: Accident
Similar articles:
Personal Injury Compensation Claims for Accidents at Work
Personal Injury Compensation Claims for Road Traffic Accidents
Accidents On Interstate 81 In Virginia | Wrecks On I-81 In Virginia


text:
A Closer Look at the New U.S. DHHS HIV Treatment Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents (Part 2)
An Interview With Joel Gallant, M.D., M.P.H.
February 13, 2008
This is part 2 of an update of the U.S. DHHS HIV Treatment Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents. For part 1, please click here.
On January 29, 2008, the U.S. government released the second part of its new HIV treatment guidelines. This second section contains antiretroviral recommendations. The guidelines have become the HIV treatment bible for U.S. health care providers and savvy people living with HIV. The guidelines contain a wide range of recommendations, including when HIV meds should be started, what regimens are preferred and what to do when someone has developed a lot of drug resistance.
The guidelines are updated about once or twice a year by a panel of 35 experts. The panel consists of HIV doctors and researchers, and even a few people living with HIV. Dr. Joel Gallant is not only one of the top clinicians and researchers in the United States, he's a guidelines panel member. Dr. Gallant is a professor of medicine and epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore.
Sure. The most important part was the change in the what-to-start section for initial combinations for treatment-naïve patients. Perhaps one of the most important changes was that abacavir/3TC [lamivudine], or Epzicom, got promoted to a preferred regimen. It had previously been an alternative. Meanwhile, AZT/3TC [zidovudine/lamivudine], or Combivir, got demoted, if you will, from a preferred to an alternative regimen.
For reasons mainly of long-term toxicity and twice-daily dosing, AZT/3TC is no longer a preferred regimen. Which is really kind of an historic thing, when you think about it, given how AZT was the first antiretroviral drug available, and Combivir has been such an important backbone for so many years.
Sorry to interrupt, but would you clarify the ramification of these revised guidelines: Do the revised guidelines state that people who are currently taking an AZT/3TC-containing regimen should be taken off of it?
No, it doesn't say that at all. There are certainly reasons why you might consider that, given that the Gilead 934 study2 and other studies3 did show progressive loss of subcutaneous fat with continued use of AZT. The story is somewhat similar to what we saw with d4T [stavudine, Zerit], but perhaps not as rapidly progressive. You could certainly make a case for switching, not to mention the benefits of switching from a twice-a-day dose to a once-a-day regimen. That makes sense for a lot of people. But the guidelines certainly don't come out and say that you should switch. This section is talking about how to choose treatment options for a person who has never been on therapy before.
So, what about the promotion of abacavir/3TC, from an alternative to a preferred regimen? We knew, in previous versions of the guidelines, that Epzicom, or Kivexa, as it's called in some countries, was an alternative regimen, not because it wasn't effective, but because of the issue of abacavir hypersensitivity. Now that we can test for HLA-B*5701 that issue has subsided significantly.4,5 So, if you can test for HLA-B*5701, and use abacavir only in those patients who test negative, then the risk of hypersensitivity is low enough that it makes sense to consider this another preferred combination. The guidelines specifically state that abacavir/3TC is now preferred in those patients who have tested negative for HLA-B*5701.
People suspected that it would happen. You can never know for sure, of course, because the workings of the guidelines panel are not public until they become public. But everybody kind of assumed, I think, that this would happen, especially after the Sydney conference last year, where the data on HLA-B*5701 testing became so convincing that it really left very little room for doubt anymore about the utility of that test.4,5
Let me just point out that there were a few other changes. Ritonavir [Norvir]-boosted saquinavir got moved up on the basis of the GEMINI study.6,7 It was in a category that doesn't really exist anymore; that is, a category called "acceptable, but inferior to preferred or alternative components." On the basis of the GEMINI study it's now an alternative PI.
Then, in terms of options that are no longer recommended for initial therapy:
Trizivir was kept on that list for a long time after it was shown to be virologically inferior.
It was. It was always considered kind of ... In the last set of guidelines, it was sort of an alternative to the alternatives. It was kind of in a funny category that really doesn't exist anymore; that is to say, it would be acceptable to use it if you couldn't use the preferred regimen, and you couldn't use the alternative, which didn't leave a very big place for it. But now it's completely off, altogether.
Before we move on, let me just point out some things that weren't discussed in the guidelines. That is, some of the newer drugs. So, darunavir [Prezista] is not listed there. Yet we do know that there are some emerging data on darunavir for treatment-naïve patients from the ARTEMIS study, where it looked very good at the dose of 800 mg plus 100 mg of ritonavir.8 But the ARTEMIS study is not mature; it hasn't been published yet. The numbers are still relatively small. So although I think a lot of us feel that darunavir will eventually have a place for treatment-naïve patients, it didn't seem like it was ready for primetime yet.
Similarly, raltegravir [MK-0518, Isentress], while there are data looking very good comparing raltegravir to efavirenz [Sustiva, Stocrin], that's still preliminary, unpublished data.9 So no recommendation was made regarding using raltegravir in treatment-naïve patients.
Then regarding maraviroc [Selzentry, Celsentri]: I don't think there's much enthusiasm for using that drug in naives because of the need for tropism testing and the somewhat lackluster results when it was compared to efavirenz.10 So, just to be aware that the guidelines committee is aware of these drugs. It's not that they are ignoring them, but they really need more solid data before they can make recommendations.
They've come out a little more strongly against treatment interruptions. Basically they say that, with the exception of interruption because the patient's too sick, or needs surgery, or something like that, they do not recommend treatment interruption for any reason, unless it's part of a clinical trial. Clearly, this comes from the SMART study, which just showed that people who interrupted therapy had all sorts of problems, in comparison with people who continued on therapy11 -- and not only in terms of loss of CD4 cells, but even in the development of conditions that we would have thought were toxicities of treatment, but in fact were things that happened to people off therapy. So the treatment interruption section is pretty definitive about saying that there's no place for a plan to treatment interruption, especially long-term treatment interruption, in people with HIV.
I notice there's a little bit of a new discussion regarding the selection of an NNRTI-based regimen versus a PI-based regimen for first-line therapy. Do we know yet which one is better, or more powerful? I know there are different studies that have shown different things.
I don't have that section in front of me to quote, so I'll just speak from my own opinion. First of all, I think it's hard to lump these categories together. So, for example, it's hard to just talk about NNRTIs, because basically you're talking about efavirenz and nevirapine [Viramune], and the data for efavirenz are much, much stronger than for nevirapine, in terms of just the quantity of studies and the results. So when we talk about NNRTIs here, we're really talking about efavirenz. Then, with boosted PIs, or with PIs, there are also differences.
We know from the 5142 trial that efavirenz outperformed lopinavir/ritonavir, or Kaletra, in most ways, at least in terms of virologic efficacy.12 It seemed to also reduce viral load more rapidly, to suppress viral load more rapidly.
On the other hand, there were advantages to the use of lopinavir/ritonavir, in terms of CD4 response. There are other data from other studies suggesting that people on boosted PIs may have somewhat better CD4 response than people on efavirenz.
Also, in terms of the consequences of failure: Patients in 5142 were less likely to have failed efavirenz, but if they did fail it, they had greater resistance consequences than if they failed lopinavir/ritonavir.
To me, it makes it kind of a toss-up. If I had to say -- from a purely virologic perspective -- what the best drug is to use right now, I'd say it's efavirenz. But there are some real-world considerations that might cause you to choose a boosted PI. One would be in patients, where you're worried about their adherence, and it seems like a treatment interruption is likely to occur in their future; those people might be better off on a boosted PI because of the issue of resistance.
Then there are people who start out with zero T cells. Some of them do great with efavirenz and have very good CD4 responses. But we also see people who sort of get stuck at low CD4 counts. I think there's some data suggesting that they may have better CD4 responses with a boosted PI.12
The question, I guess, is: Should that influence your decision of which drug to use, or should you just go ahead and use what should be used, i.e., efavirenz, if that's the one you want to use, and then see what happens? Then, if the patient doesn't have a good CD4 response, consider switching. We don't have a lot of data on that approach. But some data suggest that that approach may work. I think it's impossible to say that one is better than the other. You really have to individualize based on the patient.
One thing I think we can say for sure -- and I hope we can put to rest this idea that I still hear people saying, that if you have a patient with advanced disease, a high viral load or a low CD4, then you must use a PI -- that is an antiquated notion that has been put to rest by studies like 509513 and 5142.12 Certainly, the height of the viral load should not influence your decision in that sense.
I see that the guidelines mention the question of whether there are benefits to treat someone during acute infection. Can you talk about that?
Yes. I don't have that section right in front of me. I don't remember there being a lot of new information, or a lot of big changes, in terms of that discussion. It's still an open question. It's why there are clinical trials, trying to decide whether there is a benefit to early treatment. There's certainly plenty of hypothetical evidence to suggest there might be a benefit. But we don't have the clinical data to say that this is helpful.
Then, the other question, of course, is if you do decide to start treatment in early infection, how long do you continue it? In the light of the SMART data,11 we are now nervous about discontinuing therapy. Yet, it seems kind of funny to commit somebody to life-long treatment, just because they started very early.
We desperately need clinical data. That's why I strongly encourage people who identify patients at that stage to refer them to clinical trials when they are available.
One of the things that the guidelines panel mentioned was that because a newly infected person is much more likely to be resistant to NNRTIs than PIs, if you're starting somebody on therapy with acute retroviral syndrome and you've ordered a genotype that will take a few weeks to get back, you're probably better off starting someone like this on a PI-based regimen, at least until you get the genotype results back. Putting patients on an efavirenz-based regimen could be risky, if they turned out to have been infected with a non-nuke-resistant virus. The reason for this is that it only takes one mutation to be resistant to non-nukes, whereas you'd have to have multiple mutations to be resistant to a PI.
You're actually quoting from the guidelines now.
That last thing I said is definitely from the guidelines.
I wanted to make sure people understood what was in the guidelines and what was not. I noticed there was a whole new section updated about tuberculosis. How common is that in the United States right now?
Well, certainly not as common as in the developing world. But we do see a lot of TB, especially in inner city populations and immigrant communities.14 So it's definitely something that people need to be aware of.
What are the new recommendations?
One recommendation regards skin testing. The guidelines point out that because a TB skin test can be falsely negative in people with low CD4 counts, they recommend that if you did a test with a CD4 below 200, and then they've responded to therapy, that you repeat the test after the response. That would give you a more accurate result.
Then, the guidelines discuss the issues of when to start antiretroviral therapy in people with active TB. I don't think they come out with a solid recommendation. There are a lot of issues here. Certainly one of them is drug interactions between rifampin and antiretrovirals. The other is the real potential for immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome, or IRIS, in people who start antiretroviral therapy during active TB. So, in many cases, it's felt better to wait, start TB therapy first, and then wait to start antiretroviral therapy until you've reduced the disease burden from TB and minimized the risk of virus.
On the other hand, studies from Africa have shown that in people who wait too long, especially if their CD4s are very low, there's a higher mortality.15,16 Now, that mortality may not apply here, in places like the United States, but it is something to consider, especially if somebody is diagnosed with TB at a very low CD4 count. So the discussion goes into the risks and benefits of early, versus delayed, antiretroviral therapy in that setting.
Have the recommendations changed at all, regarding coinfection with hepatitis B or C?
I don't believe there's been a big change. Of course, with hepatitis C, there have really never been any specific issues about which antiretrovirals you choose. With hepatitis B, of course, there are, because you want to be using hopefully two drugs that have activity against both HIV and hepatitis B. Usually, that would be tenofovir plus FTC, or perhaps tenofovir [Viread] and 3TC [lamivudine, Epivir].
The guidelines point out the risk of discontinuing that HBV active therapy because of the risk of a flare-up of hepatitis. So that's the main thing. That's not particularly new, but I think it's just worth remembering that we need to try to be using two drugs and remembering also that entecavir [Baraclude] has now been shown to have anti-HIV activity, as well. So you don't want to be using entecavir without a fully suppressive HAART regimen in somebody who's coinfected.
I guess we've covered all the most important new things in the guidelines.
I think so, yes. Because in the last conversation, we talked about the other updates to the guidelines, which were about when to start therapy.
When do you think there will be another revision in the guidelines?
Boy, I don't know. It depends on how rapidly the data come out. I think there are still some sections of the guidelines that are being worked on. You know, this is always a work in progress. Rather than coming out with one, final version all at once, they come out with the new sections as they are developed. But of course, you know, the when-to-start and what-to-start-with sections of the guidelines have always probably been the ones that get quoted the most widely, and that are referred to most frequently. So I think we're in a situation now where those two sections are pretty up to date.
But of course, over the course of this year I'm sure we'll see more data about raltegravir in naives and darunavir in naives. So by later in the year, these recommendations may already be dated and we'll have to update them again.
Dr. Gallant, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to me!
You're welcome. It's great to talk to you, Bonnie.
This is part 2 of an update of the U.S. DHHS HIV Treatment Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents. For part 1, please click here.
This article was provided by TheBodyPRO.
Add Your Comment:
(Please note: Your name and comment will be public, and may even show up in
Internet search results. Be careful when providing personal information! Before
adding your comment, please read TheBody.com's Comment Policy.)


text:
French Top 14
Bayonne player rushed to hospital
ESPN Staff
December 22, 2012
Bayonne's Francois Carillo is attended to by medical staff at the Stade Jean Dauger © Getty Images
Bayonne forward Francois Carrillo was taken to hospital on Saturday after suffering a reported a heart problem ahead of his side's Top 14 clash with Mont-de-Marsan.
The 24-year-old collapsed after taking the ball at a line out a few minutes before the end of the warm-up session, an AFP journalist witnessed.
A heart specialist team gave Carrillo cardiac massage before the player was taken to hospital.
© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.
Communication error please reload the page.


text:
I took a break to get things balanced and ended up staying away for more than 5 months.*sigh*
I am still very confused about the direction i want my blog to take but i guess i'd figure it out as i go on. It's pretty much hard juggling things in my life nowadays that i even end up being less active on Social Media except Instagram where i regularly post outfit pictures and randoms/fashion projects i am working on.
That being said, I am the new brand director of luxury brand, Lanre Da-silva Ajayi couture and it's been amazing working with the team. it also makes me push myself to be the best that i can be and also think of innovative ways to push the brand forward as regards marketing, production, brand positioning and structure etc.
We recently shot these AD campaign pictures for our Spring/Summer 2014 collection called "Colour Storm". i was so happy that the pictures came out exactly how i wanted it to be.
Elsie Vintage is also going strong after 4 years and im pretty happy about that.
I am looking forward to let y'all know what i have planned for it.
For now, Do follow Elsie Vintage on Instagram (@ElsieVintage )
More posts soon.


text:
Installing Live Lite (Mac)
The Live Lite installer can be downloaded from the Live Lite product page.
For installation instructions, watch the video below and follow along step-by-step.
Open the Ableton Live Lite dmg file in order to copy the application to your system drive. To do so, navigate to the downloaded .dmg file in your "Downloads" folder and double click on it.
Next, you will be asked to accept the End User License Agreement. Click on "Agree" to proceed.
OS X will now check the integrity of the package. This operation should take only a few seconds.
Once the .dmg file has been verified, a Finder window will pop up showing the Live 9 Lite application icon and a shortcut to your "Applications" folder.
Just drag the Live 9 Lite icon over that folder and wait until it has been copied over.
Finally, make sure to unmount the Live 9 Lite disk image by clicking on the "Eject" symbol next to it in the sidebar.
Loading Live 9 Lite
To launch Live, you can open your Applications folder and double click the program file.
By dragging the application onto the OS X Dock, you can add a shortcut to it.
Finally, you can also launch the program by searching for it in "Spotlight" (Cmd+Spacebar). Usually, typing the first letters of the program name will already display the application as the first search result.
Authorizing Live 9 Lite
When launching Live for the first time, the program will prompt you to authorize.
Authorizing online is the easiest way to authorize, as Live connects directly to the Ableton server and authorizes automatically.
For this, you will need internet access for the computer on which you have installed Live. You will be guided through the authorization process by Live.
When the Authorization dialog opens, click "Authorize with ableton.com".
Your web browser will open and take you to ableton.com, where you will be prompted to log in to your Ableton user account (or create a user account if you don't have one yet): at this point, you will be able to register and authorize Live Lite in a few steps.


text:
Renfroe helps Tennessee to third shutout of weekend and into super regionals
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. -- Madison Shipman had a two-run homer and drove in three and Ivy Renfroe fanned five in seven shutout innings as Tennessee punched its sixth trip to the NCAA super regionals with a 7-0 win against NC State on Sunday in Game 6 of the Knoxville Regional.
Renfroe helped Tennessee to its third shutout during the weekend as she and sister Ellen Renfroe combined for 23 scoreless innings to start the NCAA tournament.
Shipman finished the game 3-for-4 with a double, a home run, three RBIs and three runs while Ivy Renfroe let up just one hit on the day, a single up the middle to Lana Van Dyken in the third inning.
Raven Chavanne went 2-for-3 and scored twice, moving her career runs total to 242 - a new Tennessee career record. Chavanne broke the previous record of 241 held by Lindsay Schutlzer.
Tennessee scored two in the first, two in the second and three in the fourth and controlled the game from start to finish in the victory.
The Lady Vols jumped out to a 2-0 lead in the first inning. Chavanne opened the game with a leadoff single up the middle. Two batters later, Shipman ripped a hard-hit shot past the third baseman and Chavanne later advanced on a wild pitch to give UT runners on the corners. Kat Dotson sent a 1-2 pitch from Weiman through the right side to plate Chavanne. The Lady Vols then pulled off a double steal with Shipman coming home and Dotson moving to second to push the lead to 2-0.
In the top of the second, Tennessee grew its lead to 4-0 thanks to one big swing from Shipman. Chavanne hit a one-out double through the left side and advanced to third when Lauren Gibson grounded out to second. Shipman sent a 2-2 pitch sailing over the wall in right center for her 10th home run of the year and her first in over a month.
Tory Lewis led off the fourth inning with a double to right field, her first extra-base hit of the season. Chavanne moved her over to third with a sacrifice bunt. Two batters later, Shipman sent a pitch high down the left field line that landed between the shortstop and the left fielder for an RBI double. Two batters later, Cheyanne Tarango ripped a two-out, two-RBI single to right field to push UT's lead to 7-0. Chelsea Stanfield replaced Weiman in the circle to close out the inning.
The Wolfpack threatened in the bottom of the seventh, working two pinch-hit walks but Renfroe got the final two batters to pop out to end the threat.


text:
NEW ORLEANS — Bourbon Street behind him.
Harrah's in front of him.
To San Francisco 49ers guard Alex Boone, there are plenty of reasons to be out and about this Super Bowl week.
But he finds more compelling ones to remain safely ensconced in the Marriott while the team counts down the days until Sunday's Super Bowl XLVII against the Baltimore Ravens: spending time with his fellow offensive linemen.
"There's a brotherhood on all teams, and especially among the offensive line," Boone said Monday. "Being in the hotel, secluded away from everybody, only going to meetings and then to practice, hanging out with teach other — that builds camaraderie.
"That builds championships."
Not that Boone didn't make one brief visit outside.
"Dude, have you seen Bourbon Street?" he asked. "The whole street is crazy.
"Back in the day, I would have loved it. Not any more."
When you're in the Super Bowl, spending the week in a hotel, dealing with the extra media demands and trying to be thorough while not over-preparing for a game that means so much comes with the territory.
And for those who happen to hail from the Super Bowl city, the distractions are doubled.
"You need the extra weeks to get everything situated," said Ravens safety Ed Reed, who prepped at Destrehan. "Honestly, I'm still trying to chop things down to make sure I've got things right."
Reed will spend time with his family Tuesday. But it's his extended family, plus those who in the community who have, or think they have, a claim on St. Charles Parish's favorite son that Reed also has to deal with.
"I asked (University of Miami teammate) Jon Vilma how he handled it when the Saints played the Super Bowl in Miami," Reed said. "He told me he went through the same things.
"Honestly, I think I could fill the Superdome with my ticket requests. I'd love to, but I can't."
The Ravens arrived here Monday afternoon, a day after the 49ers, after a morning workout back in Baltimore followed by a rousing sendoff by the fans.
Baltimore, which is staying at the Riverfront Hilton, will work out at Tulane — not on the usual practice facilities but at Turchin Stadium because construction work has begun on the Green Wave's new football stadium.
San Francisco is using the Saints facilities.
And while there have been notorious occasions of player misbehavior during Super Bowl week in the past, neither team seems especially worried about it.
"This is a business trip," Boone said. "We're not here to party.
"We're going to work because we've got a lot of preparation left to do.
"Then, when it's over Sunday night, we'll have all the time we want to do other things."
Ravens coach John Harbaugh agreed that even with the week's head start, there's always work to be done, right up until game time.
"There's always going to be distractions because it's the Super Bowl," he said. "That's why plan on how to deal with it.
"If you love football, you love this part of the game."


text:
Insight, news, picks and anything NFL related!
Use this control to limit the display of threads to those newer than the specified time frame.
Allows you to choose the data by which the thread list will be sorted.
Order threads in...
Note: when sorting by date, 'descending order' will show the newest results first.
Forum Rules


text:
GameHitZone.com - Games For Free!
English | Français | Español | Русский | العربية | Português | Deutsch
Download Free Game Superbike Racers
3D superbike racing game. Take part in a greatest moto racing competition. Perform stunts to earn points and to get to the finish in time. Practice in the Single Race mode. Compete with your best result in Time Attack mode.
File Size: 36.8 MB


text:
Welcome to the Hampton Inn & Suites by Hilton Greenville Downtown RiverPlace, South Carolina
The Hampton Inn & Suites by Hilton Greenville Hotel in Downtown RiverPlace is located in the heart of Greenville, South Carolina's vibrant Downtown RiverPlace business, entertainment and dining district. Downtown RiverPlace is about life & energy, and our hotel in Greenville is the perfect place for you to stay, whether you come for business or pleasure:
Our Hampton Inn & Suites by Hilton hotel in Greenville Downtown RiverPlace is complete with signature features such as glass enclosed circular one bedroom suites, and guest rooms and studio suites with balconies. Our South Carolina Greenville hotel offers premier lodging with elegant, amenity filled guest rooms, unsurpassed views and a warm inviting decor:
We have all the amenities sure to please the busy executive or leisure South Carolina traveler, additionally our Greenville Hampton Inn & Suites by Hilton hotel guests will enjoy complimentary coffee, tea & hot chocolate served 24-hours in our lobby, microwaves & fridges available in all Guestrooms, cribs and rollaway beds are available upon request. Our state-of-the-art meeting/banquet rooms and board room are available for a nominal charge. Self Parking and Valet Parking are available, charges apply. Valet Parking is available from 7AM-11PM.
We will "wow" you with our signature hospitality and service as you enjoy the beautiful park-like setting of downtown Greenville. Come enjoy all that we have to offer.
Earn Points & Miles by staying at our Hampton Inn & Suites by Hilton Greenville Downtown hotel @RiverPlace as a member of the Hilton HHonors® Loyalty Program, click here to become a member today.
We love having you here in South Carolina at the Hampton Inn & Suites by Hilton Greenville Downtown RiverPlace hotel!
News, Press Releases, Awards & Achievements [ Read all News, Press Releases, Awards & Achievements > ]:
Hampton Inn & Suites by Hilton Greenville Downtown RiverPlace:
Specials + Packages
BOOK NOW > Guestrooms | Meetings & Weddings | Services & Amenities | Reservations | Specials & Packages | Local Flavors & Eats | Directions & Map | Calendar of Events | Photo Gallery & Tours | Contact | Careers
Privacy Policy | Site Usage | Designed by: Simpleware | Managed by: Hospitality America, Inc.
Hotels In Greenville: Our hotel greenville is part of the Hilton Family of Hotels.